Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

My observations:

"We don't like them" is not a good reason to try and impeach a President. Which is why I think the effort failed, because they were grasping at straws for an article of impeachment and could only come up with wishy-washy stuff and not following rigorous procedures to find a solid case. I mean from day 1 it was a witch hunt. You'd think you could find something better on which to base a trial, like leaking state secrets over Twitter or something.

That said, the response to "not following proper procedures" for real crimes (and there are most probably "real crimes") should not be "acquit" - it should still be "guilty" but you should also then have a "the other side is guilty too" in some sense.  Probably what you should do is kick everyone out of office, because they are all failing at their duty.

The senate ended up effectively abdicating their role in checking the actions of the president.

The senate, even many of the ones who acquitted the asshole, admitted that his actions were at minimum inappropriate while hanging for some reason on "but technically not criminal" as though that has some sort of bearing on the proceedings.

Obstructing a congressional investigation and getting away with it means the president no longer has to listen to congress effectively, and impeaching him for attempted election interference via foreign power/stepping outside his actual role and powers to hold up funding/aid for an ally was not a case of "well now we REALLY don't like him" at all.

Everybody hated him from day 1, even the snivelling cunts who licked his ballsack yesterday, but for some reason even though it has now permanently harmed the powers of the senate, they were fine with it and will need something of possibly full on constitutional amendment to repair what they did.

As for "should have followed procedures" and "found a solid case" I mean... that's literally what the second article he was impeached over was about, and the first was about him literally sidestepping congressional procedures entirely to try and boost his own chances this fall.

This wasn't a win for bitchbaby, it was a loss for the senate, the response when someone says "oh yeah, our guys are gonna do it to you right back" is to note that while you wish they could try, it's hard to even laugh at their baseless threat, that isn't a power or responsibility of the senate any longer sadly.

[Bumber]

I'll repeat, the second article was a result of the House failing to go to the courts. If they had done that and Trump still refused, they could've charged him with obstruction of justice, like Nixon.

The House dropped the ball because they were in a hurry to have Nancy sit on the articles for over a month.

[sluissa]

I'll repeat, the second article was a result of the House failing to go to the courts. If they had done that and Trump still refused, they could've charged him with obstruction of justice, like Nixon.

The House dropped the ball because they were in a hurry to have Nancy sit on the articles for over a month.

And that's pretty much bullshit. I won't say it was done perfectly. There were balls dropped. But that part specifically was bullshit. It is the constitutional duty of congress to manage impeachment. The courts are specifically left out of it (excepting the chief justice's role) because the courts are directly chosen by the president and judges are also subject to impeachment. It's also established precedent that the courts do NOT get involved in questions of congressional subpoenas. Congress would have been within their rights to send the sergeant at arms to arrest people who did not comply with relevant subpoenas that were approved by a full chamber vote.

[Max™]

(They went to the courts after being told that the impeachment inquiry would not be cooperated with because they had not called any witnesses who had been told not to cooperate if called as witnesses and they didn't have any of the documents which might prove their case because those requests had been refused despite subpeonas being issued so nuh uh you can't impeach him because it isn't legal since we're not cooperating and it's just political because there are no documents or witnesses legally because we're not cooperating so you gotta go try to take it to the supreme court which could take a year so ha ha ha also I told my lawyer and he said now attorney client and executive privilege applies so you can't make me cooperate because olly-olly-oxen-free no takebacks!)

[MrRoboto75]

I'll repeat, the second article was a result of the House failing to go to the courts. If they had done that and Trump still refused, they could've charged him with obstruction of justice, like Nixon.

The House dropped the ball because they were in a hurry to have Nancy sit on the articles for over a month.

It doesn't matter when the trial hits because the trial was already decided before it started.

Rebup senate outright admits what Trump did was wrong but ultimately do not care.

[Max™]

Don't forget the nearly comical reasoning given by many for not needing witnesses: the house made their case well enough already that he did what they said, it was simply worth sacrificing the powers of the senate to avoid pissing off butthurt trumpist fanboys.

[Folly]

Iowa's final numbers are in. Buttigieg won by less than 0.1%.

Some parties have called out errors in the count, but neither Buttigieg nor Sander's have shown inclination to demand a do-over.

[Zangi]

Iowa: The clusterfuck that keeps on giving.
Impeachment: Where Republicans show the world that the Republican Establishment literally belongs to King Trump. 

Maybe one day, Trump will declare himself El Presidente for life or just suspend elections.  With thunderous applause.

[Bumber]

And that's pretty much bullshit. I won't say it was done perfectly. There were balls dropped. But that part specifically was bullshit. It is the constitutional duty of congress to manage impeachment. The courts are specifically left out of it (excepting the chief justice's role) because the courts are directly chosen by the president and judges are also subject to impeachment. It's also established precedent that the courts do NOT get involved in questions of congressional subpoenas. Congress would have been within their rights to send the sergeant at arms to arrest people who did not comply with relevant subpoenas that were approved by a full chamber vote.

The Judicial Branch gets to rule on constitutionality and mediate conflicts between the Legislative and Executive. The President's judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, and can only be impeached by Congress. Federal judges aren't beholden to the President after confirmation.

Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive's Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive's claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible.

[Folly]

Maybe one day, Trump will declare himself El Presidente for life or just suspend elections.  With thunderous applause.

That does seem to be the plan...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1225174713992990721

[delphonso]

I, for one, welcome our Warhammer 40K hellscape.

[Kagus]

Maybe one day, Trump will declare himself El Presidente for life or just suspend elections.  With thunderous applause.

That does seem to be the plan...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1225174713992990721

EEEEEEE

[wierd]

We vote out those sacks of shit, when?

What, do they have to eat live babies on stage before we decide it's gone too far?

[scriver]

I believe it's early autumn this year, isn't it?

[helmacon]

Iowa's final numbers are in. Buttigieg won by less than 0.1%.

Some parties have called out errors in the count, but neither Buttigieg nor Sander's have shown inclination to demand a do-over.

less than .1% with 99% reporting from what I'm seeing. Sanders had about 4k up in the total vote though.

I've heard the head of the DNC is calling for recount, but was refused or something. Still not clear on that part.

The DNC seems determined to not just shoot themselves in the foot, but blow their legs clean off.